Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chinese Consol. Benev. Ass'n

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
120 F.2d 738 (1941)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person who solicits offers to buy a security for an issuer in connection with its distribution is an "underwriter" under the Securities Act of 1933, even if they act without compensation or a formal contractual relationship with the issuer.

Facts:

In 1937 and 1938, the Republic of China authorized the issuance of government bonds.
The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, a New York benevolent corporation, formed a committee to solicit funds and aid for China.
The committee, which had no contractual or official relationship with the Chinese government, urged members of Chinese communities in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to purchase the bonds through mass meetings and newspaper advertisements.
The committee offered to accept funds from prospective purchasers and deliver them to the Bank of China in New York, acting as the purchasers' agent.
The committee collected approximately $600,000 from purchasers and forwarded the money and purchase applications to the Bank of China.
The Bank of China's New York branch transmitted the funds to its Hong Kong branch, which purchased the bonds and mailed them to the buyers in the United States.
Neither the committee nor its members received any compensation for their activities.
No registration statement for the bonds was ever filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Procedural Posture:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint against the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association in federal district court.
The SEC sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from using interstate commerce or the mails to sell unregistered Chinese government bonds.
Both the SEC and the defendant filed motions for judgment on the pleadings.
The district court denied the SEC's motion, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaint.
The SEC, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a benevolent organization that, without compensation or a formal agreement, solicits offers from the public to buy a foreign government's unregistered bonds and transmits the purchase funds to the issuer's agent, act as an "underwriter" subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933?

Opinions:

Majority - Augustus N. Hand

Yes, a benevolent organization that solicits offers to buy unregistered foreign bonds is an "underwriter" subject to the Securities Act's registration requirements. The defendant's solicitation of offers to buy the unregistered bonds "for value" falls squarely within the statutory definition of selling. To be an "underwriter," one must sell "for an issuer in connection with, the distribution" of a security. The court interpreted this language broadly, holding that it is irrelevant whether the issuer formally authorized the solicitation or merely benefited from the defendant's gratuitous patriotic acts. The central aim of the Securities Act is to protect investors by ensuring they have adequate information, a policy that would be defeated if such distributions were exempt. Because the defendant engaged in systematic and continuous solicitation that was a necessary step in the distribution of the securities from the issuer to the public, it was acting as an underwriter.

Dissenting - Swan

No, a benevolent organization acting without a formal relationship to the issuer is not an "underwriter." The majority's interpretation construes the statute too broadly and fails to give meaning to the words "for an issuer" in the definition of an underwriter. This phrase implies a relationship or agency that did not exist between the defendant and the Chinese government. Under the majority's reasoning, any entity that patriotically encourages the purchase of bonds, such as a newspaper publishing an editorial, could be deemed an underwriter. This could not have been Congress's intent, and therefore the defendant's actions should not fall within the scope of the statute.

Analysis:

This decision significantly broadens the definition of "underwriter" under the Securities Act of 1933, establishing that liability is based on a party's functional role in a securities distribution, not on formal titles, compensation, or contractual relationships. By focusing on the protective purpose of the Act, the court expanded its reach to include volunteers and other informal intermediaries who play a necessary role in the distribution chain. This precedent makes it difficult for issuers to circumvent registration requirements by using ostensibly independent or unpaid groups to solicit investors, thereby reinforcing the SEC's authority to regulate public offerings.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chinese Consol. Benev. Ass'n (1941)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"